Mumbles
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 8,726
Not really. He was reportedly using a headset, and most of those have buttons that disconnect a call. Headset drops and may get stepped on, button presses, call ended.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice
- Thread starter Dancing David
- Start date
- Status
Not really. He was reportedly using a headset, and most of those have buttons that disconnect a call. Headset drops and may get stepped on, button presses, call ended.
Like I said in response to crimeresearch, there maybe details I am forgetting. It just doesn't make sense why they would have his phone and not be able to identify him. Tracy Martin says that when they got back from dinner, Trayvon wasn't home so they tried calling him but it went right to voice mail. His phone was obviously on when the fight started. The fight very well may have simply disconnected the call, maybe the BT disconnect button was hit, or the BT was damaged disconnecting the call. I just don't see why the police would have the phone in evidence and turn it off, if they are trying to identify him. Why else would the father's attempt to contact him send him right to voice mail.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Subjective feelings about the topics of discussion and the participants over the course of reading the thread.
You are welcome to feel differently, I could have said 'phases' but used a metaphor.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Well this ain't the place for that, you will have to wait for the trial.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
It is hard to tell what you mean here.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
I had to go back too. I thought the first time he said he was running was after he got out of the truck.
Roadtoad
Bufo Caminus Inedibilis
Sharp. Pointy. Stick. NOW.
It's not a lie. I questioned it earlier in this discussion.
I don't see why, "we don't need you to do that," is to be taken as a legal order not to follow, but "Yeah, we've got someone on the way, just let me know if he does anything else," can't possibly be taken as a request to keep an eye on him till the officer gets there.
RandFan
Mormon Atheist
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2001
- Messages
- 60,135
Okay. Thanks.I know you don't know that no one can know.
I'm pretty sure it will come up in court there may be enough information for us to know with great certainty.
Did he really continue to chase, even after being told not to?
I'm not sure I believe the boy actually was running. And the shooter could well have been exaggerating.
At any rate, what of this excerpt from the 911 call:
////Quote///
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: George...He ran.
///Unquote///
....At least from how this reads, it seems the shooter did NOT continue to follow him after the dispatcher communicated that he shouldn't. He replied "ok", and then says he "ran" (past tense). Both of these seem to suggest he had here ended the chase.
But there's no timestamp, so it's not clear how much time elasped between each statement. So does the actual real-time recording of the event make it clear he continued to follow even after he was urged not to?
I'm not sure I believe the boy actually was running. And the shooter could well have been exaggerating.
At any rate, what of this excerpt from the 911 call:
////Quote///
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
Dispatcher: Alright sir what is your name?
Zimmerman: George...He ran.
///Unquote///
....At least from how this reads, it seems the shooter did NOT continue to follow him after the dispatcher communicated that he shouldn't. He replied "ok", and then says he "ran" (past tense). Both of these seem to suggest he had here ended the chase.
But there's no timestamp, so it's not clear how much time elasped between each statement. So does the actual real-time recording of the event make it clear he continued to follow even after he was urged not to?
Last edited:
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
It's not. And I think most people have acknowledged that.
I'm not sure how this line of reasoning helps Zimmerman. He was the "neighborhood watch captain". The more reasons we come up with to rationalize the behavior he exhibited in contradiction to that role, the more of an irrational loose cannon he looks like.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
I think that's a bit of a stretch. The term "okay" can be interpreted so many different ways that it's essentially meaningless. I could indicate everything from "I understand and will comply" to "Whatever. I'm going to do what I want".
One of the things that makes me think he might have continued the pursuit after the 911 call is how cagey he was with the dispatcher about where the police should meet him:
Dispatcher: Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?
Zimmerman: Yeah that's fine.
Dispatcher: Alright George, I'll let them know to meet you around there okay?
Zimmerman: Actually could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?
If he was planning just to stay put and wait for the police, there's absolutely no reason he wouldn't give the dispatcher a fixed location to meet. "Call me and I'll tell them where I'm at" indicates he planned on being on the move.
Last edited:
It would be nice but I continue to see it repeated in different variations of; he was told not to follow, asked not to follow, the dispatcher suggested that he shouldn't follow, he was ordered not to follow, he disobeyed the dispatcher's request not to follow. I think the affidavit breathed new life into that particular segment of the conversation.
I don't see what the neighborhood watch captain has to do with it. Is it possible that you see it as a contradiction to that role because you've already decided that he was a loose cannon?
Do you see the confirmation bias? Okay, can mean a number of things but can you have them call me when they arrive can only mean he intended on following Martin.
Yes, that is accurate. It was reported that it was the Martin's own efforts to get TM's call log from the cell phone company that caused them to realize what an important witness she was. The Martin's attorney Clump also described DD as being extremely traumatized by what had happened. Here's one of the earlier reports about DD's call:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-arrest-now-abc-reveals-crucial-phone/t/story?id=15959017
Last edited:
Ian
Thinker
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2006
- Messages
- 241
It's good that sgtbaker pointed out the confirmation bias here. I took diverse 911 calls and non-emergency police calls from people who disconnected after telling me they would meet the units in a different location.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
Zimmerman had no legal obligation to not follow Martin, but the dispatcher absolutely suggested/advised/informed not to do so. It's funny that we would read between the lines when it comes to Zimmerman inferring a request to follow Martin, but we must stick to the exact literal interpretation of the dispatcher's words when he advised him not to so as to mitigate how serious the request was.
You've got it backwards. I see Zimmerman as a loose cannon because he was in blatant disregard or willfully ignorant of the responsibilities associated with his role.
Last edited:
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
I honestly don't think its confirmation bias. Do you deny that just saying "okay" is ambiguous?
And if there's a different way to interpret "Call me and I'll tell them where I'm at" other than "I'm going to be on the move", I'm open to the possibilities.
- Status